Dan Abrams says Hamas uses human shields and asks -- where's the outrage?
Why don't people worldwide protests Hamas' use of human shields in war?
[media=https://youtu.be/RG6CbOWCVvE]
[media=https://youtu.be/RG6CbOWCVvE]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
flipper1966 · M
[quote]If the involuntary shields are civilians deserving of some protection, what obligations does the attacker continue to have regarding them? Professor Yoram Dinstein builds on Parks' work to answer the question. "[T]he principle of proportionality remains prevalent. However, even if that is the case, the actual test of excessive injury to civilians must be relaxed. That is to
say, the appraisal whether civilian casualties are excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated must make allowances for the fact that if an attempt is made to shield military objectives with civilians civilian casualties will be higher than usual. His rationale is defensible: "A belligerent State is not vested by LOIAC [law of international armed conflict] with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm's way."' Major General A.P.V. Rogers takes a similar approach when commenting on how a tribunal considering the practice might respond. In his opinion, it would be entitled to take all the circumstances into account and attach such weight as it considers proper to such
matters as the defender's: ... deliberate use of civilians or civilian objects as a cover for military operations.., or... use of hostages or involuntary 'human shields'. It is submitted that the proportionality approach by tribunals should help to redress the balance [between the rights and duties of attackers and defenders] which otherwise would be tilted in favour of the unscrupulous."[/quote]
say, the appraisal whether civilian casualties are excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated must make allowances for the fact that if an attempt is made to shield military objectives with civilians civilian casualties will be higher than usual. His rationale is defensible: "A belligerent State is not vested by LOIAC [law of international armed conflict] with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm's way."' Major General A.P.V. Rogers takes a similar approach when commenting on how a tribunal considering the practice might respond. In his opinion, it would be entitled to take all the circumstances into account and attach such weight as it considers proper to such
matters as the defender's: ... deliberate use of civilians or civilian objects as a cover for military operations.., or... use of hostages or involuntary 'human shields'. It is submitted that the proportionality approach by tribunals should help to redress the balance [between the rights and duties of attackers and defenders] which otherwise would be tilted in favour of the unscrupulous."[/quote]